457 
in the Saprolegnieae . 
Professor Trow says that the fixing solution was c a saturated 
aqueous solution of mercuric chloride, and it was applied hot 
as advised by Hartog and Humphrey’ (p. 150). Now my 
methods have been repeatedly published ; in the'report of the 
Congres de Botanique, of ’ 89 , printed in the Bulletin de la 
Societe de Botanique de France, vol. 36 (translated in the 
Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society); and in the 
fullest possible detail in the memoir of ’95 ; nowhere do I 
speak of applying hot sublimate, for the results of the cold 
solution were good enough ; Humphrey however warmed his 
fixative, and an ambiguous sentence of his possibly explains 
Professor T row’s error. 
I have termed the central deeply staining mass in the 
nucleus a { nuclein-mass ’ ; my figures show that I saw it as 
very frequently containing deeply staining granules embedded 
in linin ; Humphrey calls it a chromatin-mass, evidently in 
the same sense. Professor Trow is not justified in writing 
* we cannot then regard it either as a nucleolus as has been 
done by Dangeard, or as chromatin or a chromosome as has 
been done by Humphrey, Hartog, and myself’ (p. 152). For 
this implies that the synonymous terms used by Humphrey 
and me are also equivalent to his own use of c chromosome,’ 
than which nothing can be more inexact. I indeed described 
this nuclein-mass as resolving itself into four chromosomes in 
division ! 
Professor Trow writes, ‘ had Hartog been able to follow the 
division of the nucleus in the oogonium (as he did in the 
antheridium) ’ (p. 164). Here again is an inaccuracy: I 
expressly state that ‘ the nuclei multiply by division, as shown 
hy the small size and large number of those found in the “fertil- 
izing tubes ” ’ (’ 85 , p. 694). I wish I had been able to 5 follow 
the divisions.’ The curious point is that it is a repetition of 
an error in his ’95 paper, to which I expressly called attention 
in my criticism of ’96 (p. 98, note). All these are, singly, 
small matters ; but collectively they count in judging the 
value of the author’s observations and inferences. 
Professor Trow’s terminology is rather perplexing at whiles. 
